Climate change industry has become the new religion – "Scientists" (clergy) trying to convince the general public that something exists to the contrary of the evidence of their own senses,increasingly aggressive when peoople don't see it their way, and quite happy to fake the data and compeletely undermine their own alleged professinal ethics when the evidence doesn't suit them.

I've just started reading through the leaked emails and code from UEA ("climategate").

It's pretty shocking to be honest.

It puts the IPCC report into a very different light.

Please go and watch the presentation linked in the first post of the thread and stop repeating the same POVs that we've all heard on both sides of the argument a thousand times before.

Which of you have actually watched the video?

I've see the video to Thriller but I don't believe in zombies.

5thElephant said

Good man. In that case I'm going to fit in an extra biking trip to Wales. Thanks for taking one for the team.

Don't thank me, I'm not doing it because I like you.

Norton, so that's a no then?

Climate change industry has become the new religion – "Scientists" (clergy) trying to convince the general public that something exists to the contrary of the evidence of their own senses,increasingly aggressive when peoople don't see it their way, and quite happy to fake the data and compeletely undermine their own alleged professinal ethics when the evidence doesn't suit them.

Oh dear. Are you actually serious?

They won't let me watch it 'cos they insist on using bl00dy Flash. I'd have to get my computer booted up unnessessarily which could contribute to global warming, dying puppies and kittens and all the little children.

To those of you who claim it is a new religion ignoring facts can you post up these facts rather than just give your polemic? You are correct when you assert that a number of people are quite preachy [as indeed is Dawkins] BUT it does not make them wrong.
There is near universal acceptance within the scientific community as there is with say evolution, Big Bang, Einstein Theory of Relativity, smoking causes cancer do you doubt these and get annoyed because it is difficult to get funding to counter the scientific orthodoxy? Call these believers zealots?
The so -called climate gate is summed up quite nicely in this quote

The American Meteorological Society stated that the incident did not affect the society's position on climate change. They pointed to the breadth of evidence for human influence on climate, stating "For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behaviour in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited."[24

When faced with this level of ignorance and denial it is no wonder some people get annoyed …like Dawkins does with Christians and creationists.

Watched some of that, lots of pictures that prove that the glaciers this guy visited are indeed melting away. One of them shows a lovely picture of retreat since 1850 and it is quite a lot.

However

I'm sure the anti AGW camp are probably prepping a similar presentation to demonstrate why it can't be AGW and that 1850 marks the end of the little ice age etc etc.

I've watched a few of these things now from both sides of the debate and as someone with only GCSE science they are all pretty convincing. I do sometimes check out the presenters and to be honest the pro-AGW lobby usually wins hands down, the deniers are often easily shown to hold poor credentials – that was until all this stuff about UEA hit the headlines… it seems that since we can't trust what they and therefore the IPCC had to say their work needs to be scrutinized again, but can't well not properly as they have dumped the orginal stats…Great… looks like we are just going to have to wait and see, on the bright side we are now due a period of change in solar activity. If we start getting proper winters again then that might help prove/disprove some of the theories doing the rounds.

One thing I will say is that people always look to make ourselves the most important things around – earth at center of the universe, god is very interested in us etc etc. I'm sure that if the majority of scientists claimed climate change had nothing to do with man made emissions then many out there would still claim it was mans fault. Either the scientists are wrong or it in places like Indonesia it is gods desire to punish us etc etc.

What I can't abide are those who don't think we should cut down on pollution or those who think because they have bought a hybrid car they are doing their bit. It is like the power stations that burn wood – great we are using renewables, bad it is being shipped 6000 miles!

near universal acceptance within the scientific community

That's exactly the kind of rather patronising thinking that worries me – you are asking me to accept something I have no personal evidence for just because of near!!! universal acaceptance by the members of a "community" who know better than me.

I'm not saying your view is necesasrily wrong, but I couldn't be made to believe in God just because the majority of the Christian community do so…

If there is such a thing as the "Scientific Community" then like all communities they will be bound by certain dominant conventions and beliefs – hence the current suppression and obstruction of evidence that gets in the way of those beliefs.

Good piece in the FT here, on the nature of secrecy in science

On another note, is anyone else taken aback by the hypocrisy of 30,000 eco-evangelists (according to the Indy) flying off to Copenhagen for a tofu-knitting circle jerk? Combine that with the 20 or so thousand of politicians and fellow hangers on and that's an awful lot of air travel…! Oh, and don't think anyone's innocent in this. WTF was Cameron doing, going on a jolly to the Pole to have a photocall with huskies to show "green" credentials?

Do as I say, not as I do?

That's exactly the kind of rather patronising thinking that worries me – you are asking me to accept something I have no personal evidence for just because of near!!! universal acaceptance by the members of a "community" who know better than me.

But if you had cancer (say) then I doubt you would be hanging around arguing the toss about whether chemo or radio therapy or homeopathy was the answer would you? Or asking whether it really was cancer? You'd be doing what the doctor, a member of a "community" who knows better than you told you.

But if you had cancer (say) then I doubt you would be hanging around arguing the toss about whether chemo or radio therapy or homeopathy was the answer would you? Or asking whether it really was cancer? You'd be doing what the doctor, a member of a "community" who knows better than you told you.

Actually, I would at least question a diagnosis before starting treatment – are you saying doctors never misdiagnose?

are you saying doctors dont know more than you ?

who would you question it with another expert memeber of the same community ?

with global warming when you question it across multiple fields with multiple experts you still get the same answer than man is having an effect if not can you please exaplain why carbon release and pollution is NOT affecting the climate adversly.

Right.

With a silent "Yeah"

Only when it starts to have a significant impact will something be done about it.

And quite right too, why waste precious resources fighting something that might not have that much of an effect? In fact, it's only when we start to face the problems that it may become economically viable to research the alternatives to fossil fuels.

eplain that last point a bit better if you fancy?

Ok – the reason we don't have a viable alternative to fossil fuels is because they've been such a cheap source of energy in the past. At the moment, because oil is still so relatively cheap, it doesn't make sense to spend the huge amounts of money required to come up with an alternative infrastructure, until it actually does start to run out, when as it becomes scarcer and more expensive the economics of alternative fuels become more attractive.

When it comes to climate change, if it does exist (and I think it probably does), how much should we sacrifice today to prevent something happening tomorrow? Also, how do we know that the way that we choose to spend our money today is the most efficient way? Who knows what technological advance is round the corner, that may save us a huge amount of investment of resources? As such, the logical decision is to deal with problems as they happen, in the most efficient way possible, rather than waste loads in the fear that they may happen in the future.

Crikey do people on here really believe in all this climate change nonsense? I'm back off to pistonheads, at least they all see through the lies.

I wish all the naysayers would just admit that they don't give a **** about climate change, and are unwilling to alter their lifestyle one little bit, rather than pretending that it's not happening, or that man has nothing to do with it.

Do I take it that 2 more people have joined the thread without reading the top post?

grumm – just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they don't give a shit, perhaps it's because they've come up with their own opinions?

I've read it, not bothered with the link.

rightplacerighttime – you never did [unless I missed it] answer the question of why – if you're so passionate about doing everything you can to save the world – did you have kids?

Had a look at the link. It's propaganda served up as impartial observation.

perhaps it's because they've come up with their own opinions?

Based on what?

Mine are based on the things I've read about globalisation, economics, and global warming amongst others.

excellent give us the references then and the we can all be so informed especially the peer review ones on global warming

uplink,

At the risk of taking even more flack for my alleged "holier than thou" attitude, my fears about climate change have in fact been a factor in stopping me having more than the 2 kids I've got.

Would I be right in thinking that you don't have kids BTW?

For me, and I expect for most people, the decision to have them wasn't exactly something that my wife and I rationalised, it was just something we had to do. But having got a couple of nice ones it is easier to rationalise about not having more. The way I see it is that we are only replacing ourselves in the overall population and also that we are bringing our kids up to at least be aware of climate change, peak-oil etc, – so hopefully they will turn out to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

And of course I haven't ever, and wouldn't try telling people not to have kids. it wasn't me who said that having children was the worst thing you could do for the environment, and I don't necessarily think it is. It depends how they choose to live.

In fact I wouldn't even tell people not to drive a car, fly or leave all the lights on either. But I would ask them to think about these things very carefully.

In any case, paradoxically, if I didn't have kids, then maybe I wouldn't be so worried about the climate – but nobody said life was simple and straightforward.

Kramer said

Had a look at the link. It's propaganda served up as impartial observation.

Because?

As I already said to someone who made a similar point. The project is half way through. Did the people running it KNOW what was going to happen?

So far the glaciers have been seen retreating at an increasing rate. If they start advancing then that will be captured on film too, so how can it possibly not be impartial?

Kramer, just noticed that you didn't actually watch it, which kind of makes further discussion pointless, given that the aim of the thread was to establish some baseline of empirical data that we could all actually see and agree on, rather than (as you're doing again) spouting the same old OPINION.

i watched the whole thing and i do think that we are the cause but i allso agree with kramer about the vid.

The trouble is nonk that kramer's opinion about the vid is made up – he didn't watch it.

maybe you can answer the question I put to him a couple of posts up, before I noticed that he didn't actually watch it before telling us all how crap it was.

well its a video of melting glaciers i grant you that but what is it proof of?

excellent give us the references then and the we can all be so informed especially the peer review ones on global warming

No peer reviewed journals on global warming, I have enough trouble reading the ones in my own profession thanks.

Relevant things I've read – No Logo – Naomi Klein, a couple by Georges Monbiot that I borrowed off my old flatmate so can't look up the name of in my bookcase, The Corporation – Joel Bakan, Collapse – Jared Diamond, Freakanomics, An Appeal to Reason by Nigel Lawson, the Guardian and the Observer fairly frequently, the Telgraph and Daily Telegraph less so. That's against the background of a fairly keen amateur interest in economics and maths, that's kept me reading various popular and not so popular maths and economics texts and things.

Not an exhaustive bibliography on the subject, I'll admit, but I reckon enough that I can hold and defend my opinion on the subject without having to resort to ad hominem attacks and the like – such as trying to imply that my basic argument isn't valid because I just don't know enough about the subject, rather than addressing the argument itself.

But you haven't actually watched the video on which you're giving an opinion?

rightplacerighttime – five words for you mate – sample error and intention bias. That's why that video is propaganda. I watched enough of it to see how biased the presenter was (not necessarily a bad thing, he's an artist trying to make a political point, which he does quite subtley IMV), and that instead of being the impartial evidence that you seem to think it is, it is in fact very much biased towards the climate change camp.

You don't have to see the whole thing to realise the inherent bias in it, just as at work I don't have to read a whole paper to realise whether it's any good or not – I'd go so far to say about 99% of the research in peer reviewed journals doesn't stand up to scrutiny in my field, I wonder how much does in climate change?

And I think that the opinion that I was giving originally was on the economics of the precautionary principle, which, again IMV, don't stand up to scrutiny.

it is in fact very much biased towards the climate change camp.

Maybe he's biased because he's seen the overwhelming evidence that you didn't bother to watch?